<p>The conviction of an Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative, Shahzad Ahmed, for killing a police inspector and attacking other policemen in a shootout at the Batla House in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar should apply closure to the many doubts and controversies which followed the incident. The shootout happened in September 2008, a few days after five serial blasts killed 30 people in Delhi. Two suspected terrorists were shot dead by the police in the encounter and the third one has now been found guilty by the court. <br /><br /></p>.<p>From the first day the encounter invited scepticism from some quarters and criticism from others, even though the very fact that one police officer was killed should have proved that it was genuine. But the suspicion was so strong that it was claimed the police had shot its own officer to make a point which is still not clearly known.<br /><br />There is an obverse side to every story. Human rights activists, a section of the residents of the area and some others raised questions about the police version of the events. Some of them were pertinent also, like why the dead police officer had not worn a bullet proof vest or why some bullet wounds or injury marks on the dead bodies were different. The police version even had some incongruities. But after assessing all evidence the court did not have any doubt about the police case. The national human rights commission had also held an investigation on a suggestion from the Delhi high court. It had found that there was no evidence of any police conspiracy behind the encounter.<br /><br />But the Batla House incident was highly politicised with even senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh claiming that the encounter was staged by the police. The then Union home minister, P Chidambaram, strongly supported and defended the police version. But Digvijay Singh’s public posture strengthened others’ doubts and the Batla House continued to be a contentious issue. It was a talking point even during last year’s UP assembly election campaign. Politicians take positions on such issues on the basis of their political interests, and not in terms of evidence or the greater national interest. <br /><br />The police certainly stage fake encounters and present terrorists’ dead bodies. But the Batala House controversy seems to have been a suspicion taken too far, a mischief crafted too well, or a situation grossly misunderstood. The judgment has cleared the doubts, but it is likely to be appealed.</p>
<p>The conviction of an Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative, Shahzad Ahmed, for killing a police inspector and attacking other policemen in a shootout at the Batla House in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar should apply closure to the many doubts and controversies which followed the incident. The shootout happened in September 2008, a few days after five serial blasts killed 30 people in Delhi. Two suspected terrorists were shot dead by the police in the encounter and the third one has now been found guilty by the court. <br /><br /></p>.<p>From the first day the encounter invited scepticism from some quarters and criticism from others, even though the very fact that one police officer was killed should have proved that it was genuine. But the suspicion was so strong that it was claimed the police had shot its own officer to make a point which is still not clearly known.<br /><br />There is an obverse side to every story. Human rights activists, a section of the residents of the area and some others raised questions about the police version of the events. Some of them were pertinent also, like why the dead police officer had not worn a bullet proof vest or why some bullet wounds or injury marks on the dead bodies were different. The police version even had some incongruities. But after assessing all evidence the court did not have any doubt about the police case. The national human rights commission had also held an investigation on a suggestion from the Delhi high court. It had found that there was no evidence of any police conspiracy behind the encounter.<br /><br />But the Batla House incident was highly politicised with even senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh claiming that the encounter was staged by the police. The then Union home minister, P Chidambaram, strongly supported and defended the police version. But Digvijay Singh’s public posture strengthened others’ doubts and the Batla House continued to be a contentious issue. It was a talking point even during last year’s UP assembly election campaign. Politicians take positions on such issues on the basis of their political interests, and not in terms of evidence or the greater national interest. <br /><br />The police certainly stage fake encounters and present terrorists’ dead bodies. But the Batala House controversy seems to have been a suspicion taken too far, a mischief crafted too well, or a situation grossly misunderstood. The judgment has cleared the doubts, but it is likely to be appealed.</p>
